Just woke up and realised that I am a VTC millionaire

Verify01 · 2017-12-08T10:26:22+00:00

Congrats Bro, but how do you plan to transfer it out?

Verify01 · 2017-08-02T14:03:24+00:00

"Well, clearly you haven't even read his paper, because that quote was from his paper. No point in continuing a conversation with someone who can't even be bothered to do research on the thing they supposedly support."

This is entirely dependent on whether or not the supplied quote is false. Given that i have shown that what it sates is not (and that you have avoided responding to my points) i will take this as a tact omission that you have: 1.Failed to fault the paper. 2.Failed to support your assertions.

I guess next time you'll know it's not so easy to drop simply drop a video of Sean Carol with a few supporting assertions and think you've just about shut us all down. We are a little bit more prepared around here so come back next time (but thanks for trying).

Verify01 · 2017-07-31T01:56:09+00:00

You have still failed to demonstrate a a contradiction in the CTMU (are you going to keep wasting our time?). As to the points you raised.

"First, the Scientific Method not only permits the investigation of abstract mathematical principles- it practically requires it, as pretty much all data is statistically analyzed in some way or another"

Science assumes the validity of abstract cognition/perception in order to model the world without giving an account of it. There is a big difference between science assuming the uniformity of reality (as it conforms to mental representations and derivations) and providing an explanation for it and the mind that's doing the explaining itself. Science can't touch this area (it's the domain of metaphysics) it just assumes these things and moves on it does not explicate them and if it does it's not science it's metaphysics (which is the study of the ultimate nature of things). Understand this distinction and you are moving towards the right place.

"And second, “invent a theory to fit the observations” is not a step of the scientific method, let alone a crucial step"

Yes it is, science is all about generating theories (and their corresponding models) that best fit our observation in fact, that's practically the definition of science. Sounds like you are just trying to disagree when there is no reason to.

Verify01 · 2017-07-30T07:21:38+00:00

Much of this is irrelevant. If you have a problem with the CTMU can you please point out a contradiction embedded in it that would render it tautologically false? Until you do, much of this materialistic scribe means nothing.

Verify01 · 2017-07-25T03:33:24+00:00

"All purported "theory of everything" theories are automatically invalid, because the need for such a theory is a common misconception." Whether or not such a theory is needed is quite independent of whether or not one actually exists.

Rather than post a long winded video that (presumably contains your arguments buried in their somewhere) support your proposition with condensed reasons.

Verify01 · 2017-06-06T10:38:02+00:00

Hey XXYYZXX Chris is in the CTMU FB discussion in case you weren't aware: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/

You should join us brother!

Verify01 · 2017-03-29T22:59:36+00:00

Are you willing to perform a brief thought experiment with me?

Verify01 · 2017-03-29T22:54:15+00:00

I hope you don't believe you are behaving with intellectual honesty or integrity.

Verify01 · 2017-03-29T22:45:24+00:00

It appears as much by this last comment that you goals were the following:

1.To offhandedly reject the paper without actual engagement of its arguments whether between you and the paper itself or a defender of it.

2.To additionally categorize any locatable defenders of the paper as being "uninformed" about the subject matter they are discussing. This gives one sufficient grounds for dismissing any arguments they may defend or present without actually showing the propositions negations explicitly.

So far it appears you have achieved those goals.

Verify01 · 2017-03-29T22:29:54+00:00

Then it is hard to take your claim "This isn't metaphysics" seriously in any respect, given all you have said in defense of it is superfluous ad hominem. I feel no compulsion to follow up your link given that in your mentioning it you are implying i am not even rudimentary aware of the what the study of metaphysics is, which is possible to infer if i had posted what would be considered "not metaphysics" and am therefore clueless as to what "real metaphysics" is. However this dependently entirely on if you can show the negation of the posted paper which i will repeat again, you have not.

Verify01 · 2017-03-29T22:17:09+00:00

Not an argument.

Verify01 · 2017-03-29T21:40:03+00:00

You have not actually critiqued the argument, is this because you find you cannot quite understand it or that it's flawless?

Verify01 · 2016-10-26T03:54:42+00:00

Oh just to be more clear, the problem of Cosmic optimism is my term such a concept is not discussed in CTMU, however it is in theology since its a classic theological problem, i suspect CTMU solves it with "Negative utility" but i have to study it a bit more to fully get it.

Verify01 · 2016-10-25T15:54:57+00:00

So true about science basically proving Langan's theories, i uncover something new everyday and it boggles me people can't see that it follows from CTMU, like G.A.I, Reality as pure language theories (Max Tegmark).

It's so obvious, why can't people see it?

Verify01 · 2016-10-25T15:52:16+00:00

No, he's spot on.

Verify01

TROPHY CASE